PDA

View Full Version : Did you ever have the PCs surrender to the BBEG to "save" an innocent or a loved one?



taltamir
2010-01-09, 12:31 AM
Did you ever have the PCs surrender to the BBEG to "save" an innocent or a loved one who was being held hostage?
I am not talking about surrendering because you were about to lose and die, I mean that the enemy intentionally uses hostages to try and force you to surrender.

Did the BBEG execute the PCs and the hostages ones on the spot?
Did they all escape? Did some of them escape? what exactly did the BBEG do to them?

BobVosh
2010-01-09, 12:34 AM
No, because I don't think they would go for it. Mainly because resurrection is such an accessible spell.

Grumman
2010-01-09, 12:51 AM
I would only do it if it was in-character for the BBEG, not because I actually expected the PCs to fall for it.

I would never go along with it, simply because anyone evil enough to kill an innocent person because their attempt to have you surrender failed is probably evil enough to kill them - and you - anyway.

taltamir
2010-01-09, 01:05 AM
I would never go along with it, simply because anyone evil enough to kill an innocent person because their attempt to have you surrender failed is probably evil enough to kill them - and you - anyway.

I wouldn't either, for that exact same reason...

but for some reason in fantasy stories the hero almost always surrenders. And usually it ends well for him. I am wondering if you ever saw PCs doing the same in a game (when the BBEG did that in character and the DM was not expecting the surrender).

RandomLunatic
2010-01-09, 01:06 AM
As a player, I would never do it. I would never trust the BBEG not to just kill everybody involved after the surrender.

And if he agrees to let the hostages go first? Clearly, he is Too Dumb To Live (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive) and suffers accordingly.:smallamused:

taltamir
2010-01-09, 01:14 AM
As a player, I would never do it. I would never trust the BBEG not to just kill everybody involved after the surrender.

And if he agrees to let the hostages go first? Clearly, he is Too Dumb To Live (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive) and suffers accordingly.:smallamused:

Well that is a pickle... on the one hand:
1. He is too dumb to live
2. He might not be all that evil
3. You want to encourage people to save you / spare you / deal with you in such situation in the future by setting a precedent of adhering to your word.

on the other hand:
1. He is too evil to live
2. He might be counting on you being SG (stupid good).
3. Just because he abides by the agreement doesn't absolve him of a lifetime of evil
4. If you let him go for the life of 1 innocent now, he will just kill a bunch of innocents later.
5. You don't want to set a precedent where people know that they can use hostages against you. (because they will!)

I mean... if the BBEG actually goes ahead and releases the hostage FIRST I'd be dumbfounded with no proper response... I would never ever ever surrender myself to a person who holds a hostage because there are only two possibilities:
1. He is evil, he kills us both (or sell us to slavery, or rape, or whatever)
2. He is not evil, if he isn't, why is he threatening the life of an innocent?
2a. try to get him to prove he is not really evil by divulging his reasoning and letting the hostage go on "good faith"

Tyndmyr
2010-01-09, 01:17 AM
I would never go along with it, simply because anyone evil enough to kill an innocent person because their attempt to have you surrender failed is probably evil enough to kill them - and you - anyway.

Exactly. You can't make deals with those that you inherently can't trust. A villain would have to be EXTREMELY lawful for me to even consider this. As in, have a long history of adhering to deals and rules even when they are not beneficial to him, with no exceptions.

It could happen, and could be a fun roleplaying incident, but in most cases, it screams of a bad decision on the part of the PCs.

Roderick_BR
2010-01-09, 03:45 AM
I think I did it once. If I recall, he did let the hostage leave when was far enough. It was too risky to get rid of his only protection against the PCs, that could still kill him on the spot even after "surrendering".

Fishy
2010-01-09, 04:27 AM
I set up something along these lines with my DM to use later... and then the game died halfway through the second encounter.

Blas_de_Lezo
2010-01-09, 04:27 AM
In my party, we never surrender. The enemies must always be butchered or viceversa. Back in time, we were specialists in the "ecology" section of AD&D 2nd Ed, if you know what I'm talking about.:smallamused:

taltamir
2010-01-09, 05:16 AM
In my party, we never surrender. The enemies must always be butchered or viceversa. Back in time, we were specialists in the "ecology" section of AD&D 2nd Ed, if you know what I'm talking about.:smallamused:

I don't, can you elaborate?

Saph
2010-01-09, 07:07 AM
I did something like this once.

However, it wasn't so much "PCs" as "PC", namely, mine. The BBEG had taken down everyone else in the party but me, and I kept on dodging so he couldn't get a clear shot. Finally he got sick of it, landed over the unconscious bodies of the other party members, and told me to stop running or he'd kill them. Nasty surprise.

Runestar
2010-01-09, 08:40 AM
Then the hostage takes his or her own life to avoid being a liability and the enemies suddenly find themselves facing one very pissed off party...:smallbiggrin:

KillianHawkeye
2010-01-09, 09:53 AM
In my party, we never surrender. The enemies must always be butchered or viceversa. Back in time, we were specialists in the "ecology" section of AD&D 2nd Ed, if you know what I'm talking about.:smallamused:

I don't, can you elaborate?

I think he's referring to the parts in the old Monster Manuals that told you the gp value of the creatures fur or tusks or eggs or young or whatever.

Blas_de_Lezo
2010-01-09, 10:28 AM
I think he's referring to the parts in the old Monster Manuals that told you the gp value of the creatures fur or tusks or eggs or young or whatever.

10 points for KillianHawkeye! :smallwink:

DragoonWraith
2010-01-09, 10:32 AM
I think everyone's forgetting the second option: you probably wouldn't do it to save an innocent, because you know if wouldn't work, but for a loved one... you might try anything, even if you don't trust the BBEG, to save the loved one.

FatR
2010-01-09, 11:14 AM
No. First, as it was said, anyone willing to use such tactics in the first place is extremely unlikely to keep his word; and second, genre-savvy villains rarely use them. If they consider themselves superior to PCs, this is unnecessary and time-wasting; if they condider themselves inferior, they are screwed if PCs refuse to comply. Only the really desperate or those who want to hurt PCs personaly for revenge/lulz/whatever resort to taking hostages.

The closest thing to it that happened in an actual game was a (desperate) villain threatening to blast a downed PC, whom others couldn't possibly reach in time. He didn't demand a surrender, just letting him go. PCs decided to let him go, maybe because it was fairly obvious that he's was recently (and violently) "fired" by BBEG and no longer the part of the actual conspiracy.

Lamech
2010-01-09, 11:31 AM
No. First, as it was said, anyone willing to use such tactics in the first place is extremely unlikely to keep his word;

I would never go along with it, simply because anyone evil enough to kill an innocent person because their attempt to have you surrender failed is probably evil enough to kill them - and you - anyway.

Exactly. You can't make deals with those that you inherently can't trust.
Evil does not equal untrustworthy in DnD. Non-lawful equals untrustworthy in DnD. A lawful villian presumably won't lie when the only benifit is one small bit of evilness.

Of course letting the BBEG go to save a few is a losing strategy.

Callos_DeTerran
2010-01-09, 01:42 PM
Hmm..this has only happened once or twice to me. The first time my PC surrendered and the second...well...he blasted the hostage and the BBEG because it was simply more practical to resurrect the hostage after the BBEG. Unsurprisingly, the DM dropped my alignment to evil and the loved one I murdered refused to be revived at my hands. Can't say I blame either of them really.

The first time it happened all of the other PCs in my group turned down the offer because they were so very certain they could rescue the hostage and still get the villain. One of them even claimed to have a plan. Well, turns out they shouldn't have been so certain because they were unable to save their own hostages, the brilliant plan was 'douse the BBEG in flames so he can't hold unto the one hostage and just heal the hostage afterwards' and failed spectacularly (killing said hostage) and in the end only my PC's hostage was left alive and my PC conscious as the BBEG turned and left after knocking out all of my party members (he might have killed one). Why? Because he was LAWFUL evil and apparently I was the only one who saw that. Turns out my party didn't appreciate me just standing there (or actively stopping them when they came close to hurting my hostage) and knocked my PC out when they woke up. When my PC woke up, my hostage was quite simply gone and they refused to tell me what they had done to him (I left the room to get a drink when I was knocked out). :smallannoyed: I found out later they had trapped him in a coin artifact we had found where if you stay too long in it, you become a permanent resident unable to ever leave. Then one of them ate the coin.

In other words, if it fits my character's personality to do so (and despite any meta-game knowledge about ressurrect or 'BBEG will just kill hostage anyway') then they will surrender in the face of hostage taking. Because such a character is usually a GOOD GUY.

taltamir
2010-01-09, 01:45 PM
Hmm..this has only happened once or twice to me. The first time my PC surrendered and the second...well...he blasted the hostage and the BBEG because it was simply more practical to resurrect the hostage after the BBEG. Unsurprisingly, the DM dropped my alignment to evil and the loved one I murdered refused to be revived at my hands. Can't say I blame either of them really.
What? that makes no sense...
If you surrendered he would have probably tortured, raped, abused, and then killed you with no opportunity to resurrect.
A quick death followed by a resurrection makes quite a lot of sense... IRL it would be different because you cannot come back from death... but when you can, why not?

sounds to me like he was just screwing you over with DM fiat.


Turns out my party didn't appreciate me just standing there (or actively stopping them when they came close to hurting my hostage) and knocked my PC out when they woke up. When my PC woke up, my hostage was quite simply gone and they refused to tell me what they had done to him (I left the room to get a drink when I was knocked out). :smallannoyed: I found out later they had trapped him in a coin artifact we had found where if you stay too long in it, you become a permanent resident unable to ever leave. Then one of them ate the coin.

ok that is just unacceptable a-hole behavior... I'd have quit that group on the spot.

hamishspence
2010-01-09, 01:49 PM
"shoot the hostage" might be a common rationale in the movies (especially when the hostage can be shot somewhere nonlethal)

but shooting a loved one, to kill, for whatever reason, is likely to have an effect on them. A case of proving positively to them that their physical wellbeing, is not as important to the hero, as other things.

Added to which, in D&D fluff, only powerful souls with unfinished business can come back- the PCs and some NPCs- we don't have clerics running around resurrecting everyone after a major disaster.

taltamir
2010-01-09, 01:56 PM
but shooting a loved one, to kill, for whatever reason, is likely to have an effect on them. A case of proving positively to them that their physical wellbeing, is not as important to the hero, as other things.

Except, they can be put through unimaginable suffering and their very souls be forfeit if left at the hands of the enemy. But if given a clean death can be resurrected without any ill effect. "I shot you because I didn't want him to feed your soul to a demon".
You simply cannot apply such IRL logic to a game where the afterlife is a known fact, where resurrections are fairly common, and where there are things so much worse then death (arguably those exist IRL too).

Besides, you are not trying to kill your loved one, you are trying to kill the person holding them hostage.

Oh, and you can use magic to commune with their soul and explain your reasoning to them.

hamishspence
2010-01-09, 02:14 PM
What you are doing though, is killing them so that you can kill the enemy without them being around for the enemy to threaten.

Though an especially nasty variant involves the villain shooting you- the moment you've shot the hostage.

Which is in many ways the point of such a Human Shield situation- unless you can kill the hostage and the villain, you've wasted an action killing the innocent, while the villain still has actions to spend on killing you.

The example given though, was closer to "hit them both with an area weapon" than "shoot the hostage, then shoot the villain"

If, on the other hand, the hostage dies not at your hands, but the villain's (say, by their reflexive triggering of their weapon as the villain dies) then you at least haven't killed them- the villain did, with their last dying action.

jindra34
2010-01-09, 02:15 PM
I've put PC's up to this once, and only in a relatively situational case, and one with sightly different rules. It was in a semi-heroic GURPS campaign (no raise dead) and the PC's had pretty much done everything in that little adventure to try to rescue the hostage (killing the person responsible was on the list for most of the party). The BB and several bodyguards were actually waiting with the hostage (who was simply locked in a room) and gave the PCs the choice to engage him in combat or to walk away and leave town (bodyguards had guns). Players took the offer primarily because it still accomplished the main goal. They also figured they could come back soon anyway and kill the guy.

hamishspence
2010-01-09, 02:19 PM
What level are the players expected to be playing at?

At low level, you can't afford Raise Dead anyway.

Some characters (Thrawn, in Outbound Flight) take the view that if an enemy's war machines have hostages attached to them, you should shoot anyway- an enemy that evil must be destroyed whatever the cost.

Others don't.

Jayabalard
2010-01-09, 02:59 PM
What? that makes no sense...
If you surrendered he would have probably tortured, raped, abused, and then killed you with no opportunity to resurrect.
A quick death followed by a resurrection makes quite a lot of sense... IRL it would be different because you cannot come back from death... but when you can, why not?It makes plenty of sense to me.

hamishspence
2010-01-09, 03:18 PM
Interestingly, "Good guys" have been known to pull "take a hostage" on occasion:

Mr Incredible, and Mirage, in The Incredibles, being one example.

Its the failure to show any concern for the hostage, in fact, that leads to her siding with the Good Guys.

So its worth remembering, before saying "when you're enemy has taken a hostage, never try and bargain with them"

Slayn82
2010-01-09, 04:07 PM
Once i put PCs in that situation. But the key point was that it envolved a dispute between 2 rival priests of Hextor (one of them was a PC). The party wasbig, 8 people, and had Lawfull, Chaotic, Good and Evil characthers.

The Enemy had anounced that if the party surrendered, they would release the prisioners. Then, as a sign of goodwill, he released around 1/3 of those prisioners, while concentrating the remainder inside his fortress. As the party refused terms (that included giving to the BBEG the puzzle with the map to a legendary treasure), they had lots of tension inside, but managed to agree to strike the enemy fortress to rescue the prisioners and obtain the key item needed to solve the puzzle. As the BBEG had divinations, he imediatelly knew the party would strike and prepared acordingly.

Part of hostages were deployed around mostly to prevent AoE attacks and act as moral leverage against those of good alignment, who in turn prevented the Evil ones from simply spaming damage against the enemy minions, even going to the point of the sorcerer having to counterspell a reckless flamestrike from the party evil priest.

Meanwhile, the battle was at night, and due to the circunstances the PCs had to engage the enemies in melee, (soldiers, ogre mercenaries, zombies, a few Devils, etc) with the controling spells being sistematically dispeled by the enemies, inside the garden of the enemy fortress with prisioners held in stakes, and one NPC hostage with the BBEG that was in love with the party Elven Archer (and previously had the key to the puzzle).

In the end, seeing his forces crushed and having lost the Puzzle Key (stole by said rogue along with the rescued NPC) the BBEG slaughtered a lot of the remaining hostages, before planeshifting to Hell, knowing that the PC's would share the blame for their death with him, thanks to a few agents sent with the released prisioners. The rogue and one Paladin ended touching the Priest as he teleported, and went along, where they killed the Priest, but ended traped there for some time, until half of the party went after them.

RandomLunatic
2010-01-09, 04:55 PM
Interestingly, "Good guys" have been known to pull "take a hostage" on occasion:

Mr Incredible, and Mirage, in The Incredibles, being one example.

Its the failure to show any concern for the hostage, in fact, that leads to her siding with the Good Guys.

So its worth remembering, before saying "when you're enemy has taken a hostage, never try and bargain with them"

I really do not think that counts as true example, sinceMr. Incredible was bluffing.And he was called on it.

hamishspence
2010-01-09, 05:00 PM
It seems to be a common trope though, that some characters are willing to surrender one person (or themselves) to save many.

Whether the person they are surrendering to (or surrendering a person to) will "keep their word" or not, is extremely variable and depends on the writer.

Surrendering yourself by saying something like "I'm Spartacus" (in the movie of that name) is usually looked on as more noble than surrendering somebody else.

And, in the case of Spartacus, everyone else tried to protect him- and as a result, the whole lot were killed.

The_JJ
2010-01-09, 05:10 PM
Look, BBEG saying 'let me go or s/he dies' are amatuers. No one knows who can trust who and you end up dead half the time. This is the kind of situation where, contrary to all other Evil Overlord situations, you want the possible to escape long action death trap. Trap the loved one. hit the button, the cry "Aha Mr. Hero, best hurry up save your loved one!" and then sidle off screen while he mindlessly hurls himself into a death trap. Bonus points for springing a seperate, evan deadlier death trap as he enters the holding area.

'Course, some heros might be all 'if I kill you now I save x* people from death, including other peoples loved ones. I can't put my love for Hotty McAkwardRoleplaying ahead of others, no matter what!' But you shouldn't even be negotiating hostage deals with them.

* where x is the number of people your diabolical masterplan who will be taught a lesson/unfortunately die as a side effect of your transendence to immortality/be killed for the lols.

Crow
2010-01-09, 05:13 PM
A quick death followed by a resurrection makes quite a lot of sense...

Actually, the books go into detail over the reasons that most NPC's do not choose to be revived. It's one of those parts that people always seem to forget, but which is pretty relevant in this discussion. What if the BBEG has an orphanage rigged to blow up or something? That is a lot of blood to have on your hands as a player. Those kids probably aren't coming back. Maybe he would have done it anyways, but maybe he wouldn't have either. Unless the guy has a history of not keeping his word or something.

Either way, even if they wanted to come back, which they likely don't, who can afford to rez an entire orphanage?

Callos_DeTerran
2010-01-09, 05:21 PM
Except, they can be put through unimaginable suffering and their very souls be forfeit if left at the hands of the enemy. But if given a clean death can be resurrected without any ill effect. "I shot you because I didn't want him to feed your soul to a demon".
You simply cannot apply such IRL logic to a game where the afterlife is a known fact, where resurrections are fairly common, and where there are things so much worse then death (arguably those exist IRL too).

Besides, you are not trying to kill your loved one, you are trying to kill the person holding them hostage.

Oh, and you can use magic to commune with their soul and explain your reasoning to them.

Except resurrections are NOT that common and the contents of the afterlife are NOT known fact. Every religion has it's own version for one and every commoner, expert, noble, and warrior cannot be expected to know about the after-life. For that matter, it takes a Spellcraft check of at least 22 to identify the spell Resurrection as it is being cast. One can assume an equivalent Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge Religion to know about the existence of the spell in the first place. More importantly, it requires a 13th level Cleric and 10,000 gold worth of diamonds which would take...10,000 years for the average commoner to make (the DMG mentions that the average commoner will only make a single gold piece a year). So no, that is not common or particularly well known.

And it was not DM fiat because if my own character and myself can understand the reasoning, then it must be seasonable in the first place. :smallwink: Remember...characters don't have the benefit of having read the PHB spell lists or similiar, NPCs doubly so. I do apologize if someone else has already addressed this.

taltamir
2010-01-09, 05:32 PM
a spellcraft check to identify the spell means that as someone is casting it, you look at the gestures that they are making with their hands, and listen to the words of power they speak, and identify those with sufficient clarity to know what spell they are casting before observing the effect.
Knowing that a resurrection spell exist? that doesn't take a check.
There is a huge different between knowing the existence of a spell and identifying it as it is being cast.

Furthermore, no each religion (in DnD) does NOT have its own unique afterlife. (although there is more than one; and it varies among the core settings).

Why wouldn't a commoner know about the afterlife when it is possible for living being to physically transport into it, and there is a local church with clerics who are capable of casting spells which include the summoning of celestial beings and talking to the dead / higher powers. Do those churches not hold sermons where they try to convert people? do the churches somehow decide to hide their factual observable and peer reviewable data on the afterlife?

And besides which, the "loved one" of a person capable of casting an AoE spell is not exactly a "random commoner".

Anyways, what I was referring to as DM fiat is the part where they refused to come back to life.

Crow
2010-01-09, 05:39 PM
Anyways, what I was referring to as DM fiat is the part where they refused to come back to life.

Which isn't really DM fiat. The books are pretty clear that most NPC's don't choose to come back.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-09, 05:43 PM
Has this ever happened in any campaign I was involved with in any way? No.

If I was playing a PC with an extremely important loved one that the BBEG was threatening to kill if I did not surrender?... Maybe. It depends on the BBEG. If this is the "I'm going to destroy the world because I hate it" type of BBEG, clearly not, since he's too evil to actually let us go. If this was more of the "I have the perception that I'm trying to make the world a better place, and you guys keep getting in the way, so please stop" type, I probably would.
Basically, what it comes down to, is if I actually thought he would let them go, I would do it. If not, then no.

Also, in regards to the "NPC won't come back" debate... I present this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0593.html). Put yourself in the shoes of the NPC. Would you really come back to this world from a (probably happier) other plane with the knowledge that your so-called 'loved one' wouldn't even step aside in the part of one crazy guy's plotting to save your life? Given that you do understand, isn't there the possibility that you wouldn't want to come back simply so that the dirty, rotten BBEG can't do it again?

Callos_DeTerran
2010-01-09, 06:03 PM
a spellcraft check to identify the spell means that as someone is casting it, you look at the gestures that they are making with their hands, and listen to the words of power they speak, and identify those with sufficient clarity to know what spell they are casting before observing the effect.
Knowing that a resurrection spell exist? that doesn't take a check.
There is a huge different between knowing the existence of a spell and identifying it as it is being cast.

There is, but there's still a huge gap in knowing about the existence of magic and knowing the specific spells that can be cast from it. I'm honestly asking, do you believe every person in any given D&D setting where magic is used knows about the existence of each spell? Because if you do, there is a lot of fiction based on D&D settings that are simply wrong because many people don't seem to know about the existence of two particular high level cleric spells.


Furthermore, no each religion (in DnD) does NOT have its own unique afterlife. (although there is more than one; and it varies among the core settings).

You...just said that the divine realms of each deity is not unique to that deity. That is very much so a mistake, as is assuming the content of each such religions dogma about the afterlife. Though if you actually did know that content it'd be pretty impressive.


Why wouldn't a commoner know about the afterlife when it is possible for living being to physically transport into it, and there is a local church with clerics who are capable of casting spells which include the summoning of celestial beings and talking to the dead / higher powers. Do those churches not hold sermons where they try to convert people? do the churches somehow decide to hide their factual observable and peer reviewable data on the afterlife?

Because knowing about the details of the afterlife are not important to the day to day life of a commoner nor are such details important to survival? Because clerics don't normally cast spells about willy-nilly and often charge large prices for it? Because every church isn't going to have an actual cleric capable of casting those specific spells unless prepared that morning?


And besides which, the "loved one" of a person capable of casting an AoE spell is not exactly a "random commoner".

They may not be random, but that doesn't mean they still don't have just a level or two in commoner and that's all. (Or maybe my character was a freak like that) Entirely possible.


Anyways, what I was referring to as DM fiat is the part where they refused to come back to life.

I know what you were referring to as DM fiat, I was commenting that it didn't seem like DM fiat to me. I KILLED them just to get at the BBEG, that tends to strain a relationship. :smallwink:

taltamir
2010-01-09, 07:15 PM
There is, but there's still a huge gap in knowing about the existence of magic and knowing the specific spells that can be cast from it. I'm honestly asking, do you believe every person in any given D&D setting where magic is used knows about the existence of each spell? Because if you do, there is a lot of fiction based on D&D settings that are simply wrong because many people don't seem to know about the existence of two particular high level cleric spells.

Do you think the vast majority of humans know about the existance of nuclear weapons, boats, planes, radio, and TV? Even if they have never seen them in person, even if they have not a clue HOW they work... most people know of their existence. Even closed anti technology societies such the amish do, and people in remote tribes as well. (they typically have some contact with the outside world)

"people can be brought back from the dead" is a pretty big thing and I'd expect almost everyone in the world knows about it. They don't know the details, but they know it is possible.


I know what you were referring to as DM fiat, I was commenting that it didn't seem like DM fiat to me. I KILLED them just to get at the BBEG, that tends to strain a relationship. :smallwink:

Then they come back to life and break up with you.
meh, we will just have to agree to disagree here.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-09, 07:26 PM
Do you think the vast majority of humans know about the existance of nuclear weapons, boats, planes, radio, and TV? Even if they have never seen them in person, even if they have not a clue HOW they work... most people know of their existence. Even closed anti technology societies such the amish do, and people in remote tribes as well. (they typically have some contact with the outside world)

"people can be brought back from the dead" is a pretty big thing and I'd expect almost everyone in the world knows about it. They don't know the details, but they know it is possible.

I sense a flaw with this logic. We market things. Come out with new technology, and right away it's in stores and advertisements. Come out with weird technology and you get late night TV people telling you that it's better than your current object of the same sort.

It's not like every time a new spell is discovered, the mage's guild (or whatever) comes out and advertises it and sells it. No, if you want a spell cast for you, you need to somehow discover what it is first, or you need to ask around and hope you get a strait answer.

And while it's true that many people will know about bringing people back to life, but there's no reason they would've had to have been able to witness such a thing, so it's likely shrouded in mystery, confusion, and superstition.

On the other hand, pretty much this entire post is opinion.

Yukitsu
2010-01-09, 07:28 PM
That's what bards were for. Seriously, it's not as though raise dead is an old spell, it'll have had enough time for legends to have cropped up, and there are enough people who can cast/afford it in any significant country that it will have been used on a king or two during one's lifespan.

Dienekes
2010-01-09, 07:54 PM
BBEG no
A thug who was just trying to get out of their with his life? Yes. Though I'm not sure it really counts as the PCs didn't so much surrender as put down their weapons and let him run away.

icefractal
2010-01-10, 05:09 AM
There's a big difference between "surrender" and "let me go". I'd certainly go for the latter, if I had enough indication the BBEG was trustworthy. In fact, that situation did happen, in a Champions campaign, and as the villain in question was known to be relatively reasonable, letting them go seemed the better option, especially as there was more than one civilian around.

Surrender though - that seems like a losing proposition in almost any case. Even if they're not just going to kill you and the hostage, why would they ever let you go? Presumably, you're going to keep trying to stop them. It seems like the best you could hope for is being released after they achieve enough power that they're no longer threatened by you. And that's assuming they're feeling nice, and don't cripple you for added security.

GolemsVoice
2010-01-10, 06:50 AM
I wasn't DMing, but in a nWoD hunters game, a demon we hunted forced my character to shoot the sherrif of his old town, and another character to rape his date. When we finally cornered him, he held one of our main informants hostage, and so the character he had forced to rape a girl offered his soul for the soul of the man he currently held, saying that his soul belongs to God, and the demon can't take what he doesn't own. We knew beforehand that demons tend to stick to the pacts they made, so it was not as much speculation as it could have been, and indeed the creature let the informant go.

My character later turned himself in to the police, confessing the murder. It was one of the most intense sessions we ever played.

Totally Guy
2010-01-10, 10:01 AM
In real life a professional kidnapper will try hard to let the police and those he plans to take money from know that he will re-offend.

Why? Seems stupid, right?

Well if you told the family that after this one kidnap you would go straight then they would have no reassurance that he'd actually release the hostage and might even plan on extorting more money from them for the same hostage.

If the kidnapper is committed to re-offending then it's in his best interest to play honestly. If he killed the hostage after he got the money his next victims probably won't pay him off. Which is bad, seeing as that's the whole point.

So, if a BBEG wanted to do this we'd have to first check his past to see if he'd played this routine honestly before. Then we'd ask him if he'd be likely to want to use the same trick in the future. If both are a yes, I'd be more inclined to surrender.

Of course being the BBEG he's likely to have a dumb plan like "destroy everything" or "ascend to godhood". Those type of plans fundamentally ruin he kidnap gambit as they suggest this is the last time he'll try that trick, so he's not bound to honour it.

If his plan was more mundane then perhaps it'd be clever. But that's not generally BBEG material.

Doc Roc
2010-01-10, 10:17 AM
Did you ever have the PCs surrender to the BBEG to "save" an innocent or a loved one?

Becomes

Did you ever have the PCs die terribly to the BBEG to "save" an innocent from Love's Pain?

Yes.

onthetown
2010-01-10, 10:37 AM
I would if it was in-character. Though, out-of-character, I think I would start praying that the BBEG was lawful evil and not chaotic.

It seems a paladin would be most likely to do the whole "self sacrifice" thing for anybody... but a lot of people would do close to anything for a loved one.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-10, 10:41 AM
Do you think the vast majority of humans know about the existance of nuclear weapons, boats, planes, radio, and TV? Even if they have never seen them in person, even if they have not a clue HOW they work... most people know of their existence. Even closed anti technology societies such the amish do, and people in remote tribes as well. (they typically have some contact with the outside world)

"people can be brought back from the dead" is a pretty big thing and I'd expect almost everyone in the world knows about it. They don't know the details, but they know it is possible.

Yes, nuclear weapons exist.

But the newest tech? How do you know that we know about it? The SR-71 wasn't known beyond its name until its retirement from service, 20-30 years later (there were 2 retirements). As for whether there's a replacement for it? Nobody knows.

As such, people may have heard about resurrection, in the same way. Not knowing how it's done, who does it, or how to go about making it happen. And what's knowing that something's possible do, if you don't believe it's possible for you?

Yahzi
2010-01-10, 12:36 PM
but shooting a loved one, to kill, for whatever reason, is likely to have an effect on them.
Not in a world in which resurrection is a fact.

This is one of the many ways D&D fails to integrate it's faux-medievalism with magic. People's attitudes towards death are going to be different when there is a known way to return from the dead.

As for the rareness of resurrection, if the PCs are planning on it, then obviously it's not that rare.

Crow
2010-01-10, 01:00 PM
Not in a world in which resurrection is a fact.

This is one of the many ways D&D fails to integrate it's faux-medievalism with magic. People's attitudes towards death are going to be different when there is a known way to return from the dead.

As for the rareness of resurrection, if the PCs are planning on it, then obviously it's not that rare.

Actually if they know of the magic's existance, they probably know that it fails most of the time. Even if they don't know why.

The books are very clear that ressurrection is seldom a choice taken up by NPC's. Not because nobody tries, but because the NPC's rarely if ever choose to come back. PC's are different. They are the exceptional ones. The ones with the drive to actually want to come back. Most people would rather spend their eternity in whichever place they went after they died, where they feel more belonging than they ever felt on the material plane.

Seriously dude, you can't keep using that same old argument, when the material explicity states why it just isn't the case.

taltamir
2010-01-10, 01:01 PM
Yes, nuclear weapons exist.

But the newest tech? How do you know that we know about it? The SR-71 wasn't known beyond its name until its retirement from service, 20-30 years later (there were 2 retirements). As for whether there's a replacement for it? Nobody knows.

As such, people may have heard about resurrection, in the same way. Not knowing how it's done, who does it, or how to go about making it happen. And what's knowing that something's possible do, if you don't believe it's possible for you?

it has been thousands of years since the gods literally rewrote magic (2e to 3e transition... remember the editions are continuous). And resurrection is given by the gods, not researched... so this bit of magic should have been around for a very long time. Not exactly newest tech stuff

Jayabalard
2010-01-11, 01:33 AM
Not in a world in which resurrection is a fact.Yes in a world in which resurrection is a fact.

Worira
2010-01-11, 07:20 PM
Actually if they know of the magic's existance, they probably know that it fails most of the time. Even if they don't know why.

The books are very clear that ressurrection is seldom a choice taken up by NPC's. Not because nobody tries, but because the NPC's rarely if ever choose to come back. PC's are different. They are the exceptional ones. The ones with the drive to actually want to come back. Most people would rather spend their eternity in whichever place they went after they died, where they feel more belonging than they ever felt on the material plane.

Seriously dude, you can't keep using that same old argument, when the material explicity states why it just isn't the case.

So...The choice is between killing the hostage and letting them decide if they prefer to be resurrected or not, or surrendering and hoping the villain feels like keeping his word? If the hostage wants to come back, they can. If not, they can chill in their super happy fun afterlife. Why does that make it worse than resurrection always working?

Crow
2010-01-11, 11:36 PM
So...The choice is between killing the hostage and letting them decide if they prefer to be resurrected or not, or surrendering and hoping the villain feels like keeping his word? If the hostage wants to come back, they can. If not, they can chill in their super happy fun afterlife. Why does that make it worse than resurrection always working?

That's going to depend on your campaign, the villian in question, and the DM. There is no blanket correct answer to the question you pose. There are so many different ways it can play out, and each one is going to be different depending on the campaign, villians, and characters involved. Not all Bad Guys who take hostages are going to blow up the world. Not all Bad Guys are going to kill every hostage. Furthermore, what if the hostage had no connection to you? Blanket answers to these situations lead to the following;

"I'm sorry, Farmer McPeasant, I had to kill your five year-old daughter to stop Badguy McEvil from getting away with your pigs. But hey, if you can manage to save up 5,000gp worth of diamond dust in time, you can TRY to get her raised."

Even if the players foot the bill for the spell, if the kid doesn't come back, the player characters have outright murdered an innocent girl, leaving her family with what could be a lifetime of grief. Not to mention, word of such actions spreading to those who may not agree with the players' methods, and wish to exact justice.

Lycan 01
2010-01-11, 11:51 PM
Last night the bard ran off by himself and got captured by some undead guards sent to patrol for the necromancer the party was supposed to hunt down.

This afternoon, me and the bard's player got together to RP the interogation.

He sang like a canary when the necromancer offered to find out where his missing sister was in exchange for info on the rest of the party and their weaknesses. The necromancer was true to his word, and after getting in touch with the leaders of the cult that kidnapped his sister, and he told the bard the good news. His younger sister was alive! She'd just... been turned into a Daemonhost... :smalleek:

(Yes, WH40K sort of Daemonhost. I overhauled the DnD evil pantheon and replaced everyone but Tiamet with the Warp Gods from Warhammer... And in a surprising twist, my players LOVE it. :smallbiggrin:)

Worira
2010-01-12, 12:23 AM
That's going to depend on your campaign, the villian in question, and the DM. There is no blanket correct answer to the question you pose. There are so many different ways it can play out, and each one is going to be different depending on the campaign, villians, and characters involved. Not all Bad Guys who take hostages are going to blow up the world. Not all Bad Guys are going to kill every hostage. Furthermore, what if the hostage had no connection to you? Blanket answers to these situations lead to the following;

"I'm sorry, Farmer McPeasant, I had to kill your five year-old daughter to stop Badguy McEvil from getting away with your pigs. But hey, if you can manage to save up 5,000gp worth of diamond dust in time, you can TRY to get her raised."

Even if the players foot the bill for the spell, if the kid doesn't come back, the player characters have outright murdered an innocent girl, leaving her family with what could be a lifetime of grief. Not to mention, word of such actions spreading to those who may not agree with the players' methods, and wish to exact justice.

The thing is, whether to come back is up to the girl, not a failure chance of the spell itself. It's not murder, it's shipping a kid to Disneyland and paying for a return ticket. Unethical, sure, since the child isn't old enough to make an informed decision on whether to return, but hardly the same as killing someone in the real world. And any ethical dilemma there vanishes entirely if the hostage is old enough to make decisions for herself about where to live. The only problem remaining is the 2 con loss, which isn't really all that big a deal.

Crow
2010-01-12, 02:03 AM
The thing is, whether to come back is up to the girl, not a failure chance of the spell itself. It's not murder, it's shipping a kid to Disneyland and paying for a return ticket. Unethical, sure, since the child isn't old enough to make an informed decision on whether to return, but hardly the same as killing someone in the real world. And any ethical dilemma there vanishes entirely if the hostage is old enough to make decisions for herself about where to live.

Riiiiight. Ok buddy, we'll just agree to disagree on this one.


The only problem remaining is the 2 con loss, which isn't really all that big a deal.

Isn't a big deal until it happens to a PC. Then they whine and moan about it and ask to make a new character.